Violeta Bulc,Member of the Commission.
– Madam President, the request on today’s opportunity to debate on EU summer time arrangements is very timely. The Commission regularly receives questions about the time switch, including from Members of the European Parliament. Some of those doubt that we need to switch time.

As the Commission committed before this House, my services have reassessed all available evidence. This includes the very balanced and complete overview made by the European Parliament’s research services. The evidence is conclusive only on one point – that letting Member States free to apply uncoordinated time changes would be detrimental for the internal market. I am therefore against such a solution, whether that means simply repealing the directive or allowing individual Member States to opt out of the harmonised regime.

Conversely, the findings are inconclusive on human health. Some people seem to suffer from the twice-yearly changes, but this might be well compensated for by the positive health effects induced by increased leisure and outdoor activities. It is unclear whether permanent summer time or winter time would be better for the human biorhythm.

While I am open to consider the summer time issues further, I would like to stress an important point. There are two options that would allow for a continued harmonised approach: stop time changes for all Member States by amending the directive, or leave the summer time rules unchanged. If one were to select the first option, it would also have to be established when to abolish time changes – after the last change to winter time, or after the last change for summer time.

We discussed the summer time issues at the last Council sitting in December at the request of one Member State. I explicitly invited all ministers to let me know if any of them were in favour of changing the status quo. Apart from the one Member State that put the question on the agenda, nobody has done so until now. Today it is your turn.

I very much look forward to the forthcoming debate and welcome the vote on the resolution which will give Parliament the opportunity to voice its opinion in this matter. I am sure it will give rise to valuable elements for reflection. All the more so, since the success of any potential Commission proposals intended to modify the current rules by definition depends on the stance taken by the co-legislators.

Jacqueline Foster (ECR
).
– Madam President, I think during my entire lifetime this has come up, and probably in most Member States you’ll have heard this over the years: should we change the clocks or not? Just a point for my colleagues: as somebody who was formally in the airline industry, believe me, jet lag isn’t a clock moving forward or back one hour, twice a year. Jet lag is something completely different.

I think the original directive was quite logical in terms of harmonising the biannual change, so clearly at least we changed the time at exactly the same time throughout Europe and throughout the European Union. I’m personally totally unconvinced by the scientific reports which, quite frankly, are inconclusive. Furthermore, on the grounds of subsidiarity, this must be a Member State decision and should not be a decision made by the European Union and imposed on Member States. A proposed assessment by the Commission in my view is a complete waste of taxpayers’ money at a time when there are far more important issues which we should be focusing upon in Europe. I therefore say, certainly on behalf of my delegation, that we shall not be supporting these proposals – despite all of the hard work done by colleagues.

Indrek Tarand (Verts/ALE
).
– Madam President, it was about time to stop unhealthy practices in Europe, practices which cause harm to children, grown-ups and domestic animals. The practice, which was invented to serve the interests of a war economy, a practice introduced by Tsar Nicholas II and Kaiser Wilhelm II, practices loved by no less than Hitler and Stalin. So what are we waiting for? What is the problem? Let common sense prevail and let’s accept that the laws of nature are more powerful than the laws made by man, even by women and men in this powerful Parliament. And to those who believe that by changing the time on our clocks and on our wrists – that’s a shamanist way of thinking – that it can influence the sun to create more light, they are wrong. I’m sorry to say that. But by way of consolation, you will survive without Summer Time.

Heidi Hautala (Verts/ALE
), blue-card question.
– Vice-President Liberadzki, I talked about banana flies – fruit flies I think the word is in English – and I did so because the Nobel Prize for Medicine winners concluded that the internal bio-clock of banana flies is not that different from that of humans. Would you be prepared to study that result and maybe take some conclusions from that? So would you then agree that maybe fruit flies are relevant for this discussion?

Mairead McGuinness (PPE
).
– Madam President, it was worth getting up early for this debate because I have learned about banana flies and all sorts of very interesting things that I really did not know about. This is an issue that people are interested in. I have got volumes of comments, so let me read you a few.

Tommy Donnelly: ‘We tried this before, about 40 years ago, to change. Before we start, maybe someone should discover why this change was discarded. If it was not practical then, it may not be practical now’.

On the other hand, Patrick Brennan: ‘Yes, please change this ridiculous change. It would be most welcome in industry such as pharma, especially where standalone instrumentation might be used and which might not be synchronised to a network clock. One less nuisance and data integrity headache.

Then Ríona Meehan: ‘We are divided in this house. My husband, a farmer, wants the time to continue to change for winter and summer. On the other hand, I do not want my children coming home in the dark and going to school in the dark’.

So, I was going to suggest maybe a referendum but we might get a very close result, and that might be dangerous. Thank you.

Violeta Bulc,Member of the Commission.
– Madam President, I welcome the debate and your different suggestions. Let me get back to you on a few of the points.

First of all, let me stress again that the time shift has to be coordinated through EU rules. Uncoordinated national time change in the course of the year would create very significant problems for the good functioning of our internal market, notably in the transport sector. If we ever decided to stop changing the clock, it has to be done throughout the EU in a synchronised and unified manner.

Regarding health problems, it is true that the body has to adapt to the time change in March and October. Some people are more vulnerable and have more issues with the change than others. That is true. On the other hand, as some of you pointed out, other studies show that longer exposure to daylight and more opportunities for leisure and sport have a positive effect on people’s health. Whether these gains compensate for the disturbance remains unclear, but I can see that this is an important topic for you and the citizens that you represent. I am very much looking forward to the vote and the resolution later today.

Antanas Guoga (PPE
), in writing.
– I support the motion for a resolution by the European Parliament which calls on the European Commission to end the twice—yearly switch between summer and winter time. And there is a good reason for that. Last October, the European Parliament’s Research Service published a study on EU summer—time arrangements.It emphasised that the benefits of daylight saving time are ‘marginal’ – because what you save on light you spend on heating. It also found that negative consequences for health are ‘more severe’ than previously thought. Also, animals suffer from the biannual time change, which has a negative impact in the Member States where agriculture delivers strong economic value. The European Commission has to come up with a proposal regarding this issue. However, depending on the proposal, I believe that we still have to support a harmonised approach on this matter across the Union.

Alfred Sant (S&D
), in writing.
– This motion is asking for the consideration of stopping the annual summer—time change of clocks, or at least to allow each Member State to decide individually on this matter. One has to note that the concept of Daylight Saving Time (DST) was introduced to save energy. This practice may have made sense in the past when lighting made up the major part of energy consumption in the household. However, today’s energy expenses are different. For example, the cost of air conditioning outweighs the benefits of not needing lighting. Energy saving lighting further reduces such expenses. Many also argue that DST has negative health effects, leads to productivity loss, and increased risk of accidents. This mainly results from sleep deprivation that takes place until the body gets used to the new timing. Studies have shown that this period correlates with increased cardiac arrest rates by 24%, work—related accidents by 6%, traffic accidents by 8% and a productivity loss of nearly 20%. Finally, and most essentially, we have to look at the impact DST has on our schoolchildren. I am not happy with seeing kids heading to school in darkness. Any change in the current system must give priority to this issue.

Tunne Kelam, author.
– Madam President, I am happy that all Groups are voicing joint concern and protest about the arrest of Memorial representative Oyub Titiev in a place most hostile and deadly to human rights, namely Chechnya.

Chechnya was the original base for Putin’s rise to power. And Titiev’s case is not just one more violation of basic human rights. Memorial is a winner of the Sakharov Prize. An attack against this organisation and its representatives is an attack against us – a hostile act against the EU’s highest democratic body.

However, can we hope to have a serious impact on the behaviour of the Russian authorities if our protest is limited to deploring and worrying? Political gangsters value only determination and ability to cause real pain. To make a change, all Member States need to introduce Magnitsky-type lists against those responsible, and we need strong resolve to apply further sanctions if the Russian authorities do not allow free elections and free NGOs.

Petras Auštrevičius, author.
– Madam President, Sergei Kovalev, a prominent Russian dissident, upon receiving the Sakharov Prize in 2009 on behalf of Memorial addressed this very hall with the following words: ‘It is Europe’s duty not to remain silent but, again and again, to repeat and remind, and insist respectfully and firmly that Russia meet its obligations … failure to remind will certainly be understood by the Russian authorities as indulgence’. This was the call of a wise man who spent 10 years of his life in Soviet jails and labour camps. A call more than ever valid today when we see European leaders queuing up for yet another business contract to be blessed by the Kremlin. To maintain and fully implement effective sanctions must be the EU’s response to Russia’s authoritarian elites and their aggressive policy.

Soraya Post, author.
– Madam President, on 17 January, the office of the Russian human rights NGO Memorial was set on fire. The week before, Mr Titiev, the head of Memorial’s office in Chechnya, was arrested on, according to human rights organisations, fabricated charges of drug possession. According to reports from human rights NGOs, the number of political prisoners in Russia has increased. There is also great concern regarding the human right abuses and torture of LGBTI people in Chechnya. Russian authorities, you have to investigate and stop the assault on human right defenders in Chechnya and in other parts of your country. This is a clear breach of all the international human rights conventions that you have signed. I, as a feminist, find the constant harassment and assault on human rights in Russia unacceptable and the EU cannot ignore these attacks on human rights. We cannot stay silent. The Commission and Member States have to assist those who have fled Chechnya, but also the human rights defenders who are still in Russia.

Marietje Schaake (ALDE
).
– Madam President, despite a Russian signature on human rights agreements, in practice violations are rampant and the perpetrators often go unpunished. Such violations may well be condoned or sanctioned from very high up. The arrest of Oyub Titiev of Memorial, which is, indeed, a well-respected Sakharov Prize winner and the last independent NGO operating in Chechnya, is a case in point.

New laws throughout Russia target NGOs and restrict free speech and freedom of assembly. On top of that, the targeted abuse of the rights of LGBTI people is of particular concern for our Group. We call for Titiev’s unconditional release, as well as the release of all political prisoners. Russia needs to reverse its course towards its people, their NGOs and their opposition representatives.

For the EU, too, it is important to take responsibility, to follow the money and, at least, to shelter those who need our protection most.

Csaba Sógor (PPE
).
– Madam President, it is not an enviable position to be the director of a human rights NGO in Chechnya. Beyond trivial things, such as your work and person being continuously discredited by the authorities, or the fact that the organisation you lead could be closed down at any time, you are very likely to end up in prison, and it can also happen that you are shot dead, as the terrible case of Natalya Estemirova shows.

In this sense one could say that we should be relieved that the 60-year-old human rights activist Oyub Titiyev only faces 10 years in prison on charges that are, in all likelihood, fabricated. The arrest of Mr Titiyev falls into the clear pattern in which the authorities of the Chechen Republic try to crush all criticism of Ramzan Kadyrov, the Kremlin-backed leader of Chechnya. I hope that the High Representative and the EEAS will give this and all other cases of political persecution the adequate weight they deserve in EU-Russia discussions.

Christos Stylianides,Member of the Commission.
– Madam President, first of all, I would like to thank all the speakers for their contributions to this very important debate at this critical time. Unfortunately, it is not the first time that we have discussed here human rights violations in the Russian Federation. In the past 12 months, we have debated in this Chamber: the repression that followed the anti-corruption demonstrations organised on 26 March 2017; the fate of Ukrainian prisoners in Russia; the situation in the illegally annexed Crimean peninsula, and the persecution of LGBT people in Chechnya.

Today we are discussing the dire human rights situation in Chechnya, and this time specifically the increased pressure on, and harassment of, human rights defenders in the North Caucasus Russian Republic. The arrest and detention of Oyub Titiev, who is the head of the regional office of the respected NGO Memorial, is the main reason we are here today.

The spokesperson for the Vice-President of the Commission and High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy issued a statement on 11 January on the arrest of Mr Titiev, pointing out that it was part of a worrying trend of arrests, as well as attacks on, and the intimidation and discrediting of, independent journalists and human rights defenders who work in Chechnya. Similar cases in the past include those of the journalist Zhalaudi Geriev and the Chair of the Assembly of the Peoples of the Caucasus, Ruslan Kutaev, who were both sentenced to imprisonment on dubious grounds of drug possession, the same charge now being levelled against Mr Titiev.

The case of Mr Titiev is especially of concern, given that his predecessor as head of Memorial in Chechnya, Ms Natalia Estemirova, was killed in 2009 and no one has been brought to justice for that crime. Mr Titiev’s arrest was quickly followed by an arson attack on the Memorial office in neighbouring Ingushetia and by an attack on one of Memorial’s cars in Dagestan. It is clear that the arrest and the attacks are part of a concerted assault on human rights defenders working in Chechnya.

Sadly, recent statements from the authorities, including from the Head of the Chechen Republic, Ramzan Kadyrov, denigrating the work of human rights defenders, leave us with the fear that these attacks are being orchestrated by the Chechen authorities themselves, as was the case in the persecution of gay men last year.

As we have said, we expect the federal and regional authorities in the Russian Federation fully to observe Mr Titiev’s legal rights, in accordance with Russia’s international human rights commitments, and to release him swiftly. It is time for the Russian authorities to call to order the Chechen leadership and ensure that abuses stop once and for all.

Let me conclude by confirming our strong support for the Russian human rights community and independent civil society, and in particular for those working in the most difficult conditions, in terms of human rights violations, in Chechnya. We will continue urging the Russian authorities at all levels to ensure that human rights defenders can continue their work unmolested in all regions of Russia, including Chechnya.

Laima Liucija Andrikienė, author.
– Madam President, Egypt has gone through several difficult challenges since the 2011 revolution, and the international community is supporting the country in its economic, political and security challenges.

Frequent terrorist attacks, for example on the Sinai Peninsula, and all other acts of terrorism against Egypt, as well as the constant attacks on Christian Copts, imply a worrying development. Nevertheless, this cannot be an excuse for the Egyptian authorities to continue carrying out capital punishment, which is inhuman and degrading. I am seriously concerned about the mass trials conducted by Egyptian courts and the large number of death sentences.

I urge the Egyptian authorities to put an immediate and definitive end to such practices and to reverse the death sentences that have been handed down. I call on the authorities to establish immediately an official moratorium on executions, as a first step towards abolition. We, the EU, strongly condemn the use of the death penalty. I call on the Egyptian authorities to stick to their international commitments in the field of human rights.

Charles Tannock, author.
– Madam President, as Egypt makes its transition to democracy, it faces a very serious internal security threat, as illustrated by the large number of devastating ISIS terrorist attacks that were seen across the entire country, particularly in the Sinai and aimed at the Copts.

As we have seen in our own countries, finding the balance between ensuring security and honouring civil liberties in these circumstances is always difficult. Nevertheless, we are right to raise our human-rights concerns with such an important international partner. The continuing use of military courts for trying civilians, the reported use of torture to obtain confessions and the increasing use of capital punishment are all causes for grave concern.

Finally, I would like to welcome the calls in the resolution today for further investigation into the killing of Italian researcher and British resident, Giulio Regini, and the call for greater cooperation in this regard from the Egyptian authorities.

Marietje Schaake, author.
– Madam President, the repression in Egypt under General Sisi creates a ticking time bomb. Has no one learned from history? On top of stifling dissent, free speech and restricting NGOs, a shocking number of executions – over 2 000 sentenced since 2014 and at least 81 executions carried out – comes on top of these systematic repressions. The circumstances for those facing trial include torture, forced confessions and ill treatment. Yes, Egypt faces security challenges from terrorism, but the answer is never state terror. It is high time that the High Representative as well as Member State leaders speak out and unequivocally condemn these abuses. The silence in fact is deafening. It is interesting to talk about a partnership, but we have to be realistic. If this partnership is not founded on principles that we share, minimum principles and values, then we have to wonder what the added value is, and I think we have to be crystal clear as the EU.

Soraya Post, author.
– Madam President, today we are debating the executions in Egypt. Capital punishment constitutes a violation of the right to life. It is the ultimate cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment against a human being. No challenges, no circumstances whatsoever can motivate the killing of a human being. The position of the European Parliament is global abolishment. We stand for that. The doubling of executions in Egypt in one year is not an exception. Authoritarian regimes use military courts that have harsher sentences than civilian courts, and they use laws on terrorism to specifically target their activities on human rights defenders. Many have been denied access to lawyers during their trials and they have been forced to confess through torture. They have been put in solitary confinement and they have been denied the most basic privileges. I call on President el-Sisi to immediately stop all executions and to abolish the death penalty in your country. I say to Ms Mogherini, you have to stand up for the values of the European Union and condemn the executions.

Seán Kelly, on behalf of the PPE Group.
– Madam President, I think this is a very balanced resolution. It recognises the difficulties Egypt has, especially in relation to ruthless terrorist attacks, where we saw recently attacks on the Coptic Orthodox Cathedral and a mosque in North Sinai killing hundreds and hundreds of people. So in some respects, it may be understandable that the authorities would be over anxious and overreact. Nevertheless, it’s not acceptable when you have mass trials, hundreds of crimes eligible for the death penalty, people being kept in prison for a long time before their trial comes up – and of course all of this is in breach of the International Covenant on Political and Civil Rights, especially Article 14. So it is right we should encourage the Egyptians to look at this and to have a moratorium for the death penalty with a view to abolition, while at the same time standing with the Egyptian people in both having trade with them and in the fight against terrorism.

Lynn Boylan (GUE/NGL
).
– Madam President, again we are discussing human rights in Egypt. Today we rightly condemn not only the use of the death penalty in Egypt but its escalation under President Sisi. The Egyptian judicial system has many flaws. The young Irishman, Ibrahim Halawa, can testify to that.

Between 26 December and 30 January, 26 people were executed, 24 of whom were sentenced by military courts using confessions extracted through torture. Even more disturbing, the lawyers of those executed were not notified in time to lodge appeals, the families of those hanged were not permitted to say goodbye, and many now are still trying to find out how they can reclaim their relative’s body.

It is not good enough that we come here and condemn Egypt. We need action. Egypt has human rights obligations under its EU-Egypt Association Agreement and President Sisi’s crack-down on all forms of civil society is undermining stability not increasing it. Egyptian civilians are looking for us to speak up, because they can’t.

Neena Gill (S&D
).
– Madam President, when we debated Egypt last October the Commission outlined the aspirations of the Egyptian people for security, for democracy and economic growth. I had real reservations about the nature of our partnership then, and have even more so now. We raised our concerns about gross human rights violations, but how does the Sisi regime respond? Almost 30 Egyptian civilians executed in a month; 24 sentenced to death by military courts. Therefore my questions to the Commissioner are, will you clearly outline the repercussions if the Egyptian authorities fail to impose an immediate moratorium on the use of death penalty, and review legislation to meet fair trial standards? When will Member States take measures to stop companies selling equipment to Egypt that helps them repress their citizens. And how will we insist that March elections in Egypt are free and fair, and leverage our EUR 11 billion in aid, if we are not even drawing a line in the sand on capital punishment, a key objective of our human rights policy?

Christos Stylianides,Member of the Commission.
– Madam President, the European Union is definitely following the situation in Egypt very closely. Our position on the death penalty is well known. The European Union opposes capital punishment under all circumstances and I completely agree with you that, for us, it represents an unacceptable denial of human dignity and integrity.

At the meeting of the EU—Egypt Subcommittee on Political Matters, Human Rights and Democracy, which took place in Cairo last month, the Union shared its concerns with the Egyptian authorities. This was about the recent execution of more than 20 people, and we reiterated our principled position against the death penalty. We have called on Egypt to commute death sentences whenever possible and to establish a formal moratorium with a view to the abolition of capital punishment. Furthermore, we encourage Egypt to take concrete steps to end military trials for civilians, and, in accordance with international standards for a fair trial, to retry in civilian courts citizens convicted by military courts.

At the same time, I would like to mention a number of other issues concerning websites and human rights organisations. The EU raised, in its position for the EU—Egypt Association Council of July 2017, clear concerns regarding the blocking of websites and the ongoing pressure on human rights organisations and defenders. That position was also expressed in the recent EU statement at the Human Rights Council under item 4, as well as during the latest meeting of the EU—Egypt Subcommittee on Political Matters, Human Rights and Democracy, in January.

Egypt is a key partner for the EU and a significant regional player. The sustainable stability and security of this country are crucial, not only for all Egyptians but also for the entire region, for the European Union and for our Member States. It is our firm conviction that democracy, human rights and fundamental freedoms are crucial for this purpose, especially in the context of the many challenges that Egypt is facing. We appreciate the difficulties and we stand side by side with Egypt in addressing them. This view is based on universal values and we regularly discuss these with our Egyptian counterparts within the framework of the new Egypt partnership priorities that were adopted in July 2017.

The protection and promotion of human rights, democracy and the rule of law are guiding principles for EU external action. You can count on us to continue actively to promote and defend these principles in our engagement with Egypt, as we do with all our neighbours and partners around the world. This is the situation, and we are trying hard to exert pressure in relation to these very important issues.

Catherine Bearder, author.
– Madam President, heaven knows Haiti has its problems. Years of corruption, natural disasters and earthquakes would test any country, so what is unique to Haiti? What is holding them back?

My first speech to this House was after the 2010 earthquake, when children were being sold into slavery. But today we still see the terrible plight of children there. Haiti has half a million children at risk, in slavery and being trafficked. The Haiti custom known as restavek
holds the most vulnerable children as slaves and servants for host families. So what is the Haitian Government doing to protect these children? Well, when a government’s budget puts more into cleaning offices than providing health services, you know something is wrong. Corruption is endemic and this has to change.

Poverty, unemployment, poor health services and lack of education must cease to be the reality for Haitians. After all, on the other side of the island, in the Dominican Republic things are not so bad. So it cannot just be geography. The children of Haiti deserve care, education and protection from their Government. This House needs to send a strong signal, and I urge you, colleagues, to support this motion.

Urmas Paet, on behalf of the ALDE Group.
– Madam President, I am appalled that we even have to have a global slavery index. Slavery is something that should not exist anymore.

Even more saddening is the situation in Haiti, with child slavery ranking high. One in 15 children lives as a restavek
in Haiti, and 60% of these are girls. Many of them are also sexually abused. It is a consequence of the huge amount of poverty in Haiti. The international community can, and must, help the Haitians in their fight against poverty and help them make education accessible to each child’s biological family, all over the country. It is imperative to see that resources are spent on community-based services to strengthen the ability of families and communities to care for their own children.

The legislation must be put in place to detect and investigate child slavery cases, traffickers must be brought to justice and labour laws must be updated to address child labour. The European Union can also help Haiti to break free from its cycle of extreme vulnerability to natural disasters and make it more resilient.

Ignazio Corrao (EFDD
).
– Madam President, it is sad that nowadays we are still witnessing not just slavery but its most heinous and awful form, child slavery. In Haiti poor parents from rural areas send their children away under the illusion that they will be educated and well kept and will have brighter opportunities in life.

Restaveks
are, in fact, exploited physically and verbally abused, whipped, humiliated and sometimes sexually exploited. Moreover, children live in precarious conditions of health and nourishment. Often prevented from going to school, they are forced to work 18—20 hours per day. Every time a restavek
implores to be sent back home, he or she is likely to receive a beating in return. At the end of this nightmare these undefended children will end up on the street.

The two major factors that perpetuate the restavek
system are widespread poverty and a social acceptance of the practice. Therefore, I wish to invite the European Union and the Member States to increase their financial support to the Haitian Government on condition that it complies with the obligation to respect the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Seán Kelly (PPE
).
– Madam President, I reiterate the calls for the European Union to contribute as best as it can to the Haitian Government’s efforts to improve the extremely troubling living conditions of children in Haiti. It is crucial to protect vulnerable minors from abuse and to have more community values that foster a stable and safe environment for children. I welcome the call for effective mechanisms in Haiti to establish protection for children who may fall victim to abuse and child labour as a result of the restavek system, whereby hundreds and thousands of children are sent to families other than their own. Most of them don’t go to primary school. One in four girls and one in five boys become victims of sexual abuse before 18 years of age, and 85% of children are subject to violent discipline. This is a result of the social norms that exist there, and I think that we must work hard to ensure that those social norms are cast aside. I also agree that we should be increasing, not decreasing, humanitarian development aid to Haiti.

(A „catch the eye” eljárás vége)

Christos Stylianides,Member of the Commission.
– Madam President, the protection of children’s rights is a top priority in our external action worldwide, in particular in development and humanitarian aid. We have been actively engaged in the fight to end child labour, boost access to education and, of course, strengthen children’s rights.

I totally agree with you regarding the powerful role of education in such difficult conditions on the ground, and that is why, as Commissioner, from the beginning of my term of office I decided to increase our budget for education in emergencies eight times. It is quite important to realise that sometimes, in such conditions, education is the only way to protect children.

In this regard, Haiti is no exception. The Haitian population – and in particular, the most vulnerable groups, including children – have been particularly affected by natural disasters and instability. We are also fully aware of the so-called restavek
practice, which exposes children to exploitation, sexual abuse and isolation, condemning them to illiteracy and perpetuating poverty. The European Union is very sensitive to these major human rights issues and that is why among our top priorities for cooperation with Haiti is the promotion of education and human rights, with several programmes under the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR) aimed at fighting these practices, which are shameful, frankly speaking.

Children’s rights are also one of the priority issues for the periodical EU political dialogue with the Haitian authorities. We, as the European Union, clearly intend to maintain and further increase our involvement in this issue. At the most recent political dialogue, which took place in Port-au-Prince on 30 January, we conveyed our concern regarding the precarious situation of children and their rights. In particular, we reiterated the need to follow up on the latest Universal Periodic Review recommendation in this regard.

Two EU projects, each worth EUR 0.5 million, have been approved: one focusing on access to justice and legal protection for children, and the other dealing with the protection of children in urban areas near the border with the Dominican Republic where, unfortunately, there is a higher incidence of child trafficking. These projects will be implemented until 2020.

The European Union will also continue to advocate the ratification and effective implementation of relevant international conventions such as the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, International Labour Organisation (ILO) Convention 182 on the Worst Forms of Child Labour, and ILO Convention 138 on the Minimum Age for Admission to Employment. These are our activities in order to alleviate the suffering of children in Haiti. Thank you for your attention.

President. –
Before we start our voting session, I have to make two announcements and I would like to have your attention.

The first announcement is related to the Taiwan earthquake. At the resumption of this plenary sitting, our thoughts go out to the victims of the powerful earthquake in Taiwan yesterday, some of whom are still missing. We wish the victims, their families and the emergency workers, who are still working round the clock to help as many people as possible, every strength in the aftermath of this natural disaster.

President. –
The second announcement is that the competent authorities of France have notified the election to the European Parliament of Jacques Colombier, with effect from 2 February 2018, replacing Edouard Ferrand. I welcome our new colleague and remind him that he takes his seat in Parliament and on its bodies and enjoys all the rights attaching thereto under the conditions laid down by the regulation.

***

David Coburn (EFDD
).
– Mr President, I note that we are discussing the European Investment Bank, but we have not discussed the fact that the British are owed 35 billion and we would like our money back. That means that all the stuff they are talking about is irrelevant and it has to be looked at again.

Christofer Fjellner (PPE
).
– Mr President, I would say that there is inflation in the number of cases in which this House votes to enter into negotiations on the basis of a mandate that is put to the vote in committee and not in plenary, and that is problematic. It is, of course, reasonable if there is a broad consensus in the relevant committee on the substance, but, in this case, on the most important parts of this matter, there were only three votes that made the difference. That is not enough. There should also be a reflection of what is voted on in committee and in other opinion-giving committees, which again is not the case here, as the outcome does not reflect, for example, the Transport Committee’s vote. Essentially the issue is, of course, less about how much information truck users should give away to help us know how much CO2 emissions they produce and more about how much information they should give away so that Chinese competitors can get their upper edge. The principal question, which is probably more important, is that the European Parliament plenary should decide on the mandate for the European Parliament to enter into negotiation and should not regularly delegate that decision to the Environment Committee, or any other committee for that matter. Therefore we should vote against entering negotiations on the basis of this mandate without scrutinising it.

Helga Stevens, deputising for the rapporteur.
– Mr President, firstly, Mr Dalton apologises that he is unable to be here to speak on this report himself.

This regulation is an important step to close loopholes and improve cooperation between Member States in the fight against criminality. The efficient exchange of information on previous criminal convictions in the EU Member States is vital, in order to ensure trust, confidence and mutual recognition in the area of judicial cooperation. It is also only right that there is equality in the exchange of information on convictions of EU nationals and third-country nationals. Today, under the current European Criminal Records Information System (ECRIS), we identify previous criminal convictions in the EU for EU nationals but not for third-country nationals. Our report closes this gap.

The report had wide support in the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE) precisely because it provides a fair balance between protecting the rights of individuals and ensuring that past criminal convictions are correctly attributed. It is about ensuring that judicial authorities and law enforcement agencies have a complete picture in order to carry out their work. As an instrument it offers clear safeguards and protection. It is only for convictions handed out by EU Member States, and it can be accessed only under certain very specific circumstances. A robust and secure system for sharing conviction information with clear safeguards is needed, and this is what the LIBE Committee has proposed.

Miapetra Kumpula-Natri (S&D
).
– Mr President, in paragraph 8, which deals with political pressure on journalists, I propose to add one sentence: Urges Turkey to drop charges against a Finnish-Turkish journalist, Ayla Albayrak, who has been convicted by the Turkish court in absentia.

Alex Mayer (S&D
).
– Mr President, I welcome this report. The far snazzier 378 new carriages for trains in East Anglia is thanks to EUR 60 million from the European Investment Bank, the amazing facilities at Stanford-le-Hope superport in London Gateway (EUR 100 million), the Galloper Wind Farm off the Suffolk coast (EUR 225 million), and schools across Luton and Hertfordshire, like Westfield Academy in Watford (EUR 63 million). That is what being part of the European Investment Bank has meant for the East of England, and I say ‘long may it continue’. I hope that the UK Government takes note that the Investment Bank’s AAA credit rating is higher than its own and so prioritise Britain’s continuing to maintain the closest possible relationship into the future, so that our companies can continue to finance big-ticket infrastructure projects.

Jan Zahradil (ECR
).
– Mr President, I have always been a supporter of Turkey, including its attempt to join the European Union, but I have to say that even I am gradually changing my mind because what is going on in Turkey these days is simply crossing a red line. We see that gradually democracy in this country is being curbed. We see political pressure on free media, on the judiciary, on state administration, on the school system and universities. We see various strange conspiracy theories being spread around and we see also a gradual departure from the secular character of the State. I think that it is time, therefore, to call particularly on the ruling party to stop this and therefore such a resolution is fully justifiable, and I supported it.

Neena Gill (S&D
).
– Mr President, I supported the resolution on human rights in Turkey, but I want to focus on Afrin, where Turkey is justifying its intervention as self-defence against terrorism. Yet there has been no attack from Afrin on Turkey. This is a blatant violation of international law, with Turkish bombs targeting hospitals, civilians and children. Turkey is even teaming up with the Jihadist militia to kill Kurdish fighters, who have been our key allies in pushing back the Daesh.

Language used by authorities on social media reeks of ethnic cleansing, leaving little room for doubt about the Turkish agenda, and this is yet another blow to the Geneva process. We need to break silence on the Turkish invasion – not only in the UN, but also in NATO – ensure humanitarian access to Afrin and put this high on the agenda of the upcoming Syria Donor Conference, and adopt a leading role on Syria, bringing the Geneva process back to the forefront and making the EU strategy adopted last year worth its name.

Andrejs Mamikins (S&D
).
–Mr President, as we all know, Turkey is becoming less and less respectful of human rights. At the same time it is becoming a more and more important regional power and its every political move may have severe repercussions on security in Europe. Erdoğan is able to justify any human rights repressions and the use of brutal force as a pretext for fighting terrorism and the desire for revenge for the failed attempted coup in 2016.

This strategy means that we are probably going to see even more crackdowns on civil society in the months to come. What is even more worrying is that the international community is going to have less information on what really happens in Turkey. I have a journalistic background and I can personally testify to the crucial importance of free mass media in a country’s political trajectory. Current persecutions, jailing and physical attacks on journalists is unacceptable. That is why I voted in favour and sincerely hope that corresponding political decisions by the Member States will follow.

Laima Liucija Andrikienė (PPE
).
– Mr President, I voted in favour of the resolution on the current human rights situation in Turkey as I am deeply concerned about the situation. The government’s repressive measures under the state of emergency are disproportionate and they breach the basic rights and freedoms enshrined in international conventions to which Turkey is a state party.

The lack of respect for the freedom of religion and increased discrimination against Christians is as worrying as the imprisonment of a large number of members of the democratic opposition and journalists like the German, Deniz Yucel, human rights defenders like peace activist, Osman Kavala, lawyers, civil society representatives and nearly five thousand academics in Turkey.

I expect a candidate country to uphold the highest standards of democracy, including respect for human rights, the rule of law, fundamental freedoms, such as the freedom of expression and freedom of assembly and association, as fundamental pillars of any democratic society.

Laima Liucija Andrikienė (PPE
).
– Mr President, I voted in favour of the resolution on the situation in Venezuela. We must stand together with the Venezuelan people in their fight for human rights and democratic ruling of the country. We condemn the decision of the illegitimate National Constituent Assembly to call early presidential elections by the end of April 2018. It is of the utmost importance to continue imposing EU sanctions and in particular to extend them to the main perpetrators responsible for the increased political, social, economic and humanitarian crisis, namely President Nicolás Maduro and his inner circle, Vice-President Tareck El Aissami, Minister of Defence Vladimir Padrino Lopez and the High Military Command. I call on the High Representative, Madame Mogherini, to take the necessary measures in this regard. The elections in Venezuela must be free and fair without any discrimination, qualifications or political prisoners.

Daniel Hannan (ECR
).
– Mr President, when I was growing up in South America in the 1970s Venezuela was the country that people emigrated to in order to get away from poverty and oppression. How quickly the application of socialism can turn a prosperous, functioning, modern economy into a disaster zone! 800% inflation, running out of food and basic medicines – and, incredibly, documented cases of malnutrition. All the way through the Chavez experiment we had voices on the left in this House and in the national governments cheering it on and saying that it should be a model for our European governments. Now, suddenly, it wasn’t socialism at all – it was sort of an experiment that went wrong, like all of the others, like Yugoslavia, like Romania, like Cuba, China, Russia. It’s always wonderful until it goes wrong, and then it was ‘never proper socialism in the first place’. Invariably the pattern is the same, with the displacement activity we just heard to the effect that, you know, something else bad is happening in Honduras and therefore we shouldn’t care at all. The reality is it was perfect textbook socialism control of an economy that reduced a once—wealthy country to poverty and dirt. When are we going to learn the lesson?

Seán Kelly (PPE
).
– Mr President, as the only Irish member on the ad hoc committee which has been looking at clock change for a couple of years now, I want, on behalf of my country, to thank Parliament firstly for putting this into the debate today, which unfortunately I couldn’t attend, because it clashed with shadows’ meetings that I had to engage in, but also for the vote that we have had here today. The vote is very conclusive. 384 voted in favour of the resolution, 153 against and 12 abstained. So now there’s a clear imperative for the European Commission to take this seriously, do a thorough assessment and then, hopefully, as a result of that assessment, come forward with a legislative proposal that will – hopefully – end this biannual change, which our evidence suggests is good neither for man or beast nor for energy.

Andrejs Mamikins (S&D
).
– Mr President, colleagues, in dealing with the issues that closely touch the everyday lives of European citizens, we have to stick to the evidence-based approach. The research that has so far been produced by the European Commission has shown that the summer-time change has very little impact on a person’s well-being. In addition to energy savings, it provides major opportunities for evening activities. Certainly we should encourage further research into this topic to find new evidence. If the need to stop changing the clocks is underpinned by the national governments, there will be a reason for us to consider adopting a relevant regulation. Otherwise, if this issue is not a priority for citizens or for the governments and would not bring meaningful benefits to the internal market, what is the reason for adopting new measures here in the European Parliament? Personally, colleagues, I’m not convinced so far about the need to change the current arrangements and I therefore voted against the resolution calling for the summer-time clock change to be stopped.

Miguel Arias Cañete,Member of the Commission.
– Mr President, today’s debate is a good opportunity to recall the importance of the Trans-Adriatic Pipeline as a key infrastructure project for European Union energy security and the internal energy market, and how it fits into the broader European Union picture.

Let me start with a few words to put this project into its full context. Gas remains today a significant source of energy in the European Union, accounting for 22% of the Union energy mix. At the same time, Europe is increasingly dependent on imports of gas. The Union currently imports 70% of the gas it consumes; and, in 2016, 42% of these imports came from a single supplier. Our domestic production is declining at a faster pace than our gas demand, thus our import dependency for gas is expected to further increase, to more than 83% by 2040.

For that reason, the European Union has been pursuing a study of diversification of gas supply sources and routes. This diversification strategy has three key dimensions: first, the opening of the Southern Gas Corridor to bring gas from the Caspian region and the Middle East directly to Europe; second, benefitting from the developing global liquefied natural gas (LNG) market; and, third, developing a liquid-gas hub in the Mediterranean region.

I want to thank the European Parliament in this context for the support it has lent the Commission in our efforts to make gas supplies for our Member States more diversified and more secure, notably by supporting our LNG strategy and helping us achieve an ambitious compromise on the Security of Gas Supply Regulation. In this context, the Trans-Adriatic Pipeline (TAP) is a key element of this strategy to promote diversified supply and competitive markets. It will provide a key link to the Southern Gas Corridor and the resources of the Caspian region for Italy and south-east Europe.

For Italy, this additional supply source is particularly important, given that the sale of gas in its energy mix, at 35%, and its substantial dependence – 90% – are both above the EU average. I would also remind you that Italy was the Member State that lost the most, in terms of GDP growth, from the gas cut-offs we saw in 2006 and 2009.

TAP will also be crucial in terms of lessening dependence on a single supplier in south-east Europe, creating a gas hub in the region and integrating this market with the rest of the European Union. We expect the TAP project to improve Europe’s energy security and lead to a more competitive market. This will ultimately benefit consumers, who will pay lower prices.

Let me now turn to the question raised about the potential environmental impact. A high level of environmental protection is, of course, of the highest priority for the Commission. First, I note that the necessary environmental and social impact assessments have been carried out for this project, and these included a list of conditions to be fulfilled before the construction phase, during the construction phase and in the operational phase itself. These assessments also include an appropriate impact assessment as defined by the European Union’s Habitats Directive, to exclude significant effects from the project. And I would point out that the pipeline does not fall into the offshore area protected by the Natura 2000 network.

Lastly, let me confirm to you that the Commission is in contact with the authorities to ensure that the project is carried out in line with the necessary standards and that all necessary measures will be taken to protect nature in the region. I look forward to a good exchange about this project.

Andrejs Mamikins, on behalf of the S&D Group.
– Mr President, while the Trans-Adriatic Pipeline (TAP) is an ambitious and game—changing project that can contribute to the EU’s efforts in decarbonising the economy and introducing environment friendly energy supply, it faces several criticisms, and not without reason.

The Trans-Adriatic Pipeline has so far encountered more obstacles than approvals. At least two investigations have been conducted on it, one about connections between the TAP project and Italian organised-crime groups and offshore capital, and the other about a tacit political and economic arrangement between Erdoğan, Aliyev and Russian oligarchic groups. Certainly these are issues that have to be addressed by their national governments.

However, the Trans-Adriatic Pipeline is a project we need. It will facilitate gas supply not only to Italy, Bulgaria and Croatia but also to several Western Balkan countries, including Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro and Serbia. In the context of the current Western Balkan enlargement strategy, that has a specific value. TAP will create a stronger bond between this region and the EU and consequently improve our energy harmonisation. In addition, multiple opportunities will appear for the transport of Caspian natural gas to some of the largest European markets, such as Germany, France and Austria. If we are bound to build greater energy security in the EU, TAP will certainly make a great contribution – and, more than that, TAP means major economic development and job creation for all the countries concerned.

However, while the TAP corridor is a strategic priority for the Italian economy and other partners, it represents a matter of concern to ordinary citizens. Why? Tourism activities represent a big share of income on the Adriatic shore, and environmental security in this regard is a matter of great importance.

Such preoccupations have also frequently been raised by the authorities of Puglia, who are very concerned about the conservation of their olive groves. In Puglia they call olive oil the ‘green gold’ because it is the wealth of their region. Digging up their olive trees may compromise local livelihoods. Around 2 000 olive trees have to be removed and transplanted to make way for the pipeline, and the criticism raised by the head of the region, Michele Emiliano, is perfectly understandable.

So how can we be sure that the Trans-Adriatic Pipeline is in the interests of the private citizens who are actually paying for its construction? How can we guarantee that such large—scale projects are implemented with due democratic accountability to our citizens, and with thorough consultation with local authorities? The answer lies in democratic guarantees that the contracting governments have to give their citizens. We cannot apply the ‘business as usual’ tactic and present the project to the people as an accomplished fact.

In this specific case, a lack of preliminary consultation has brought about delays in the project’s implementation because no substantial compromise had previously been reached. To tell the truth, there was no significant attempt to reach such a compromise.

When we have to deal with such important initiatives, the EU must take the lead in filling the democratic gap. Businesses are often not interested in asking the opinion of the families who will have to live beside their new installations. Citizens need the certainty that TAP does not carry any potentially high industrial risk, such as that of explosions.

This is very important. Citizens need to be asked. I repeat this again and again because, in today’s Europe, where there is a desire to promote democratic consultation and accountability, respect for sustainability and the harmonious life of households, we cannot afford to let business be done only among the big players, while ordinary people stand looking on, without a say. That it is why it is very important to discuss this issue –very important even for my small country, among the Baltic states, Latvia. That is why we are discussing it here in Parliament.

Seán Kelly (PPE
).
– Mr President, I think that some perspective is needed in this debate. While I completely agree that there is a huge need to move towards a system that is primarily based on renewable energy – and I strongly welcome Parliament’s opting for ambition last month when it backed our proposal for a 35% target for renewable energy – this is a more complex issue that I feel is often overly simplified.

First of all, as Commissioner Arias Cañete pointed out, security of supply is of crucial importance, particularly in our eastern Member States which have at various times in recent years actually experienced gas shortages. At the moment we still have a lot of dependency on gas, both for heating and for electricity generation. We have an obligation to push our ambitions on renewables and climate change.

There is no doubt about this, but there is equally an obligation to ensure supply security to our citizens, many of whom have real concerns in this regard. At the moment, diversifying gas supply is our most effective method of doing so in many regions.

Secondly, the transition to renewables is moving quickly, particularly in recent years, but it is still a gradual process. Fossil fuels, preferably gas rather than coal or oil, and biomass will be needed to provide the base-load generation that balances our energy system to ensure the cost effectiveness and feasibility of integrating more and more renewables. I have been at the centre of calls for increased investment, under the ninth Framework Programme for research and innovation (FP9), in the development and improvement of balancing and storage technologies that we hope will be able to replace fossil fuels in time for this purpose. But again, this will take time.

Regarding the wider debate on the inclusion of certain projects on the list of projects of common interest (PCIs), that seems to have inspired this afternoon’s debate: yes, the PCI list includes certain fossil projects, but these are of strategic interest to the European Union. They are about ensuring supply security with interconnectors, pipelines and terminals for liquid natural gas (LNG). They are about helping to improve the functioning of our markets and moving towards a single European internal market for gas and electricity. And perhaps most importantly, they are about helping to ensure affordability of energy for the consumer.

So, all in all, I think that this project is worthwhile. We have to take on board concerns, but at the same time security of supply is of crucial importance and projects that secure supply for our citizens must not be disregarded.

Seán Kelly (PPE
), blue-card answer.
– No, it’s not. Obviously the views of local populations have to be taken into consideration, but just because the local population objects to something doesn’t mean the whole project should fall. They have to be properly consulted, they have to make their points known, but there is also an obligation on those who run the project to inform them of the full facts, and then people can proceed. And I think in this instance the balance would suggest that the security of supply is absolutely vital because without it the locals, communities and customers in general, will be without gas and without heating and will pay more.

Miguel Arias Cañete,Member of the Commission.
– Mr President, the Commission has followed with the utmost attention all the concerns expressed by the honourable Members during this very interesting debate. As I said in my introductory remarks, the Commission sees the Trans-Adriatic Pipeline (TAP) as an important project not only for Italy but also for south-east Europe and the European Union as a whole, because it will bring significant energy security and diversification of gas supply sources. It also has the potential to stimulate investment, to create jobs and improve their quality and ultimately to reduce energy prices to the consumer.

I would like to comment in reply to some of the reflections, particularly from Ms D’Amato, who raised many topics and I will try to address some of them. My first comment is related to respect for human rights in countries which supply energy to the European Union. The Southern Gas Corridor, beyond its energy dimension, also serves as a unique platform for engagement with Azerbaijan, Georgia and Turkey. Mutual interdependence in relation to the Southern Gas Corridor project thus contributes to security and to a dialogue that aims to secure positive developments, in line with the core values of the European Union, including human dignity, freedom of democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights. And pursuing our economic interests will not compromise the defence of our values. In our experience, the most reliable and effective way to promote them in a sovereign partner country is through dialogue and constructive engagement. In this spirit, on 7 February 2017, the European Union launched negotiations on a new agreement with Azerbaijan that will replace the 1996 Partnership and Cooperation Agreement.

There was a comment about the possible effect on climate change and the impact vis-à-vis the Paris Agreement. I would say that the TAP and the Southern Gas Corridor will not, per se, increase gas-related greenhouse gas emissions because this is an alternative source of gas and it is not intended to serve demand growth. The objective is to diversify sources in order to increase energy security. In fact, it is very likely to reduce the carbon footprint of the units of gas arriving in the European Union because the entire corridor will consist of brand new, state-of-the-art pipeline infrastructures, which are inevitably less leakage-prone than those built in the 1970s.

Many of you referred to the environmental impact the project may have. The environmental impact assessment for the TAP started in 2012. It was improved through the Environmental Impact Assessment Decree issued by the Italian Minister for the Environment in September 2014, with 65 conditions to be fulfilled during the pre-construction, construction and operational phases of the project. Subsequently, in May 2015, the Italian Minister of the Economy issued development consent for the TAP.

It is clear that there were legislation changes in the area of environmental impact assessment in Italy, and the powers to approve some verification-of-compliance conditions were given back to central government. Ms D’Amato asked the Commission some questions, which have been answered in a letter from Commissioner Vella, raising the issue of whether the decision to give to central government the power to approve this verification of compliance would violate three environmental directives. The answer from the Commission was that the arrangements for the transposition of European Union law at regional level, and the delegation of institutional responsibility for fulfilling requirements designated through acts of national or regional transposition, are the responsibility of Member States; and it was concluded that, in the specific case raised by the honourable Member, no infringement of European law could be identified.

In the Commission’s view, there has been a commitment from the TAP project promoters to avoid any environmental or negative social impact. Some 20 landfall points along the Apulian coastline were studied, from Brindisi to Tronto, in order to identify the one, at San Foca, with the least environmental impact. A state of the art micro-tunnel was used for the landing point, passing more than 10 metres below the beach. So there will be no impact on the shoreline, and this technology will avoid interference with protected sea and land habitats and, at the same time, will render the pipeline invisible.

Also, the width of the pipeline has been reduced. Care has been taken in respect of sustainable water management: the pipeline has been buried 1.5 metres below agriculture land to ensure that farmers can continue using their land, and olive trees will be relocated. They will be stored temporarily until they can be replanted.

We also understand that the TAP project promoters are implementing social and environmental investment projects in communities along the route. These projects are being implemented to promote sustainable development, and in full consultation and cooperation with communities along the pipeline route. In Italy, the focus has been on livelihoods, tourism, agriculture and fisheries, and community services and infrastructure. Project funding has been raised from small-scale grants, local community initiatives and regional development partnerships.

There were some comments on whether the pipelines had to be assessed according to the Seveso Directives. The so-called Seveso III Directive on the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances does not apply to the transport of dangerous substances in pipelines, as this would typically be regulated by other relevant legislation.

There was another question on whether there would be Russian gas in this pipeline. I can tell you, honourable Members, that there will not be Russian gas in the TAP when it comes into operation in 2020 and opens up the Southern Gas Corridor. With an initial capacity of 10 billion cubic metres, it will be transporting gas only from the Shah Deniz gas field in Azerbaijan, and no other gas can be transported as part of this initial capacity as that would be in violation of the exemption decision that TAP received from the national energy regulatory authorities. If the capacity is doubled, there will be provision for additional use of capacity in a non-discriminatory manner.

Finally, the Commission was asked whether it envisaged carrying out an impact assessment of the project’s economic and social consequences. The Commission does not envisage carrying out such an assessment for a specific projects. Such assessments are the responsibility of project promoters, and the promoters of the TAP carried out very extensive assessments of environmental social impacts for all the countries it crosses – Greece, Albania and Italy. The complete dossiers on these environmental and social impact assessment are publicly available on the TAP website.

The Commission understands that very high-quality environmental and social impact assessments were also requested by the international financial institutions approached by the TAP project promoters for the project financing. These assessments were recently positively approved by the European Investment Bank due-diligence team when the loan application from the promoters of the TAP project was proposed to the EIB Board of Directors, and agreed on 6 February.

But the usefulness of the TAP has been scrutinised by the Commission. The Commission, together with other members of the regional groups established under the TEN-E Regulation in the context of the projects of common interest (PCI) process, assessed the TAP contribution to energy policy objectives, such as security of supply, market integration, promotion of competition and sustainability. The assessment was done on the basis of a cost-benefit analysis carried out on TAP’s behalf and the main results are available on the TAP website. In this context, the TAP was positively assessed as contributing to energy policy, and it was therefore included in the list of projects of common interest (PCI list) initially in 2013, and subsequently in 2015 and 2017.